If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The austrlian distraction

Originally Posted by shinbone

.... clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn...

Me - too. I have no idea how MP did it because he refused to explain I guess, it is commercial secret... My point was that MP statement is not enough to think that all bees are doing OK in neonic fields. I was trying to explain my point of view on it, that such logic could not prove any statement. MP's operation is only 0.07% - he could not speak for everybody. That's it. That was my point.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by sqkcrk

Instead of "Okay", wouldn't it be more accurate to say productive and that colony mortality is relatively low?

MP stated that he has a colony loss of 10% when average is 30% and more. He did not know how it was happened and he asked the borderbeeman to explain to him why his bees are doing well....
sorry, nothing personal.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

MP stated that he has a colony loss of 10% when average is 30% and more. He did not know how it was happened and he asked the borderbeeman to explain to him why his bees are doing well....
sorry, nothing personal.

His 10 to 15% Winterloss is well below the National Winterloss Average and not that much higher than Winterloss Averages pre-Varroa.

Of the 30% National Winterloss as reported, how much of these losses have to do w/ neonicetinoids? I doubt that there is any data on that. Is there?

Nothing personal? Of course not. I didn't take it that way and neither should you.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

How long do you think that would take for Michael to do? How much detail would you expect from him? He is running his operation, supervising employees and such. When would he have the time?

Mark
I have deep respect to people like yourself, Mr. Palmer and other 1398, who is working very hard in commercial operation. My point was that it is not right to make a conclusion that all bees are OK between neonics fields based on 0.006-0.07% sample. If you ask the question, you need to know the answer. May be you could answer for Mr. Palmer? Why his bees are doing well? For instance, when Michael Bush is commenting on beesource, he always post a references to the book, so people could learn.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

OK, this is getting circuitous.

From what I can tell by reading some of Michael Palmer, his bees do well because of good beekeeping. That's all.

The fact they are surrounded by neonics does not seem to affect them. Mike may or may not have some theories as to why, but really, he probably doesn't know, other than that the effect of neonics on his bees is not the sky falling down scenario that some claim it ought to be.

The reason this has got circuitous Cerezha, is you are constantly trying to work the argument around to the position that Mike has to explain why his bees are unaffected by neonics. But to repeat what has already been said, it is up to people who claim his bees should be affected by the neonics, to explain why their claims are being shown to be untrue in this case.

No reason Mike has to explain anything, least of all respond to comments with a "tone".

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.

Why should you?

If I made the claim, I would have to explain how it affects your bees, not demand you do.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

OK, this is getting circuitous....

Oldtimer
I purposely do not touch neonics because we have a history of the hot "discussions" going nowhere. If Mr. Plamer's bees are doing 300% better than average (winterloss 10% vs 30%) it may be beneficial to 1399 other commercial operations to learn from Mr. Palmer's expertise - if everyone will have 10% loses, we could just forget neonics! I am trying to see a positive side in this story. Since, loses in average around 30%, to me it means that not so many people learned from Mr. Plamer's how to do a better beekeeping. But, yes, I agree - 10% loss is indication of good beekeeping practice and we all need to learn from Mr. Palmer. I personally, feel bad that did not manage to read any of Mr. Palmer's books or publications. My excuse is that I am a hobbyist and experiment with my bees in my own way. Right now, I am solving the problem, how my formerly nice bees in their anger managed to penetrate PM vented suit many times? My theory is that they regressed so much that their butts are small enough to get trough first mesh layer... or may be I unintentionally selected them to penetrate vented suit?

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.....

Yes, it shows the difference in our thinking. If somebody tells me that it looks like my bees may be affected by microwaves from the antenna (!) recently installed near my place (details!) - than I would investigate the case to see if anything true in such statement. I would not claim that my bees are OK just because I think so. Than, until issue with microwaves resolved, I would insist to shut down the antenna - I need a proof that it is safe to me, my kids and, yes, my bees. This is how regulatory agencies work - it needs to be proven, that it is safe, not reverse. This is why EU banned neonics - the companies have two years to prove, that it is safe. Nobody is going to show that it is poisonous...

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Mark
I have deep respect to people like yourself, Mr. Palmer and other 1398, who is working very hard in commercial operation. My point was that it is not right to make a conclusion that all bees are OK between neonics fields based on 0.006-0.07% sample. If you ask the question, you need to know the answer. May be you could answer for Mr. Palmer? Why his bees are doing well? For instance, when Michael Bush is commenting on beesource, he always post a references to the book, so people could learn.

Was Michael making that conclusion? Or was he asking BBM to tell him why his bees are not dying being next to fields of corn. Isn't that BBM's premise? That such crops are killing bees?

I would not presume to speak for Michael Palmer. He is the one to do that.

Some things I do know are that Michael doesn't migrate and he raises his own queens and has done so over a long period of time.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

Yes, it shows the difference in our thinking. If somebody tells me that it looks like my bees may be affected by microwaves from the antenna (!) recently installed near my place (details!) - than I would investigate the case to see if anything true in such statement. I would not claim that my bees are OK just because I think so. Than, until issue with microwaves resolved, I would insist to shut down the antenna - I need a proof that it is safe to me, my kids and, yes, my bees. This is how regulatory agencies work - it needs to be proven, that it is safe, not reverse. This is why EU banned neonics - the companies have two years to prove, that it is safe. Nobody is going to show that it is poisonous...

This explains the roundabout we're having. I'd tell the someone to bugger off!

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by sqkcrk

...Some things I do know are that Michael doesn't migrate and he raises his own queens and has done so over a long period of time.

See! It is already useful! I feel uncomfortable discussing Mr. Palmer behind his back. I really respect his efforts to keep bees healthy. If he wanted to comment on it - it would be beneficial to many.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Barry

This explains the roundabout we're having. I'd tell the someone to bugger off!

Yes, I agree.
But this is how the system works - company must provide the evidence that chemical is safe, not reverse... unfortunately, US system does not work well to protect citizens - it issues regularly temporary permits before evidence that the chemical is safe has been provided... than these temporary permits extended to infinity...